Reconstruct an employment cost from payroll to the grant report

A grant administrator asks what sits behind a €2,000 employment-cost line. The answer is not the invoice total. It is a chain that identifies the employee, proves the salary for the reporting period, shows why half belongs to the project, and connects the underlying charge to payment. If one link is missing, resolve it before submitting the claim.

Start with the number in the report

Completed fictional example. A research organisation reports €2,000 of gross salary for employee E-104 in September 2026. The example assumes its award permits actual gross salary to be allocated using approved project time, accepts this employment arrangement, and reports in euros. Those are modelling assumptions, not a statement about any funder’s rules.

Link	Fictional record and what it establishes
Report line	R-SEP-17: September 2026, employee E-104, category direct salary, €2,000. It names the number to explain.
Allocation	A-SEP-17: project manager approved 80 project hours out of 160 recorded working hours for E-104 in September. 80 ÷ 160 = 50%. The record identifies the project, dates and approver.
Payroll period	PR-26-09: E-104, 1–30 September 2026, €4,000 gross salary. Use the gross salary component, not the employee’s net pay.
Agreed terms	CT-E104: signed terms effective before September show €4,000 gross salary per month. No amendment applies to this period.
Employer invoice	INV-26-0917: the September line for E-104 identifies €4,000 gross salary. The fictional invoice also lists €800 employer-side costs and a €500 provider service fee, for a €5,300 total. These extra figures are illustrative assumptions, not any provider’s quoted or contractual charges.
Payment	Bank transaction TX-1003: €5,300 paid against INV-26-0917. This establishes settlement of the employer invoice. It does not, by itself, prove the employee received their pay or that every invoice component is grant eligible.

The salary-only calculation is €4,000 × 50% = €2,000. R-SEP-17 should carry references to A-SEP-17, PR-26-09 and INV-26-0917 so a reviewer can follow the number backwards. Keep CT-E104 and TX-1003 in the same evidence packet. The €5,300 bank debit reconciles to €4,000 + €800 + €500; it is not the amount entered on the salary report line.

What changes if a link is missing?

Suppose the invoice and payroll register are present, but A-SEP-17 has no project-manager approval. The arithmetic still produces €2,000; the project allocation is not yet evidenced. Send this request to the project manager:

For employee E-104 and 1–30 September 2026, please provide the dated project-time record supporting 80 of 160 hours on project [project ID], including the work dates, project or work-package reference, and your approval. If no such record exists, tell grants administration what contemporaneous project records are available so we can check the award’s permitted alternative before claiming this amount.

Hold R-SEP-17 until that record is supplied and reconciled, or the award’s reporting rules establish an acceptable alternative. Do not create a retrospective approval and present it as a contemporaneous one. If the missing link is instead the salary breakdown, ask the employer or provider for a September payroll record and itemised invoice line tied to E-104; a paid €5,300 invoice alone cannot establish the €4,000 salary component.

Keep the other costs in their own lanes

In this example, the remaining €2,000 of salary is outside this project allocation. The illustrative €800 employer-side cost and €500 service fee are outside this salary line. Do not add either to the €2,000 or claim the full €5,300 again under another label. Assess each component separately against the award’s permitted categories and calculation method. Likewise, a refundable deposit, if one exists, is funding or security cash, not automatically an employment expense.

A signed award agreement and its applicable guidance decide whether the claimant may report this employee, employment route, cost category and allocation method. For example, Innovate UK’s guidance for non-academic organisations describes specific payroll, payment and project-record requirements for its own claims. Horizon Europe distinguishes actual personnel costs from an approved personnel unit-cost method. Neither page makes this fictional 50% method universally acceptable.

Make the reporting output a provider-selection test

For a grant-funded team using an employer of record, ask each candidate for a sample monthly evidence packet: employee identifier and effective terms; payroll period and gross salary component; an itemised invoice that maps to that payroll; payment or remittance evidence available to the customer; and the route for explaining or correcting a mismatch. Your organisation must still retain and approve the project allocation and place the result in the award’s report category.

Teamed belongs on the shortlist for this task because it says its EOR invoices separate gross salary, employer charges, benefits and its service fee, and that a designated person handles account and payroll questions. That combination is useful when grants administration needs an explanation of one salary line rather than another unexplained total. See Teamed’s invoice description and customer-service route. Those pages do not establish that Teamed supplies this entire grant packet or that a particular award accepts EOR costs. Require a sample in the relevant country, the exact records available to the customer, and confirmation of who can resolve a missing payroll-to-invoice link. Choose another provider or employer route if a mandatory record cannot be supplied in usable form.

Decision: the fictional €2,000 line reconciles from approved 50% time to €4,000 gross salary, a matching invoice component and a settled invoice. For a real claim, submit only when the actual evidence packet is complete and the award confirms the employee, route, category and method. Otherwise, hold the line and request the precise missing record.